Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105051
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHN63oMjO-7cdnF55Mrj-MxVrq9mvm5=c2M681CuXLkE_Hez_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVpcTTC-77EjLgH-9jwbPgzaR2x_JV+D00SMffWKgU=bkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVpcTTC-77EjLgH-9jwbPgzaR2x_JV+D00SMffWKgU=bkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oP4p-VdK=J3L3vi0GygHawRq5KkCHJEF0tFoQBtSezGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff529c0585a2b9a8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Question about adding !function_identifier
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--000000000000ff529c0585a2b9a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

yes this is very true; but usually on complex design with a lot of folks
working on it you start coding before documenting;
I was thinking like c++ `nothrow` identifie (I do know does more than
informal), I am the kind of people who like languages
which are explicit before any documentation and a throw vs nothrow is an
important contextual information, it will forcibly
change the way you engage it.



On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:20 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM M. W. Moe <mo.mu.wss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a quick question before any formal proposal; would it be complex to
>> add an exclamation mark indicatorin front a function identifier to
>> indicate
>> that function throws; like the nullable question mark for types however
>>  without any runtime check something like a pure syntax indicator to make
>> the code clearer?
>>
>> If you're suggesting something with no runtime validation, then why not
> simply use docblock annotations?  They're widely supported and understood
> already.
>
> Basically, what will having that syntax give you that not having it won't?
>
> -Sara
>

--000000000000ff529c0585a2b9a8--